Questioning the Last Layer
最后一层的追问
A state has no regulator of force at a higher level above it. It has several "lasts": the last rule, the last instance, the last exit, the last force, one another, with no superior, the last resort. This paper is the last of the series, and it asks three things: whether every "last" lies under a channel it cannot itself close; which channels there are, inwardly and outwardly; and how far the whole series has answered, and where it stops. "Last" refers to level: there is nothing above. It does not refer to exemption from questioning. The Theory of Government says that a construct's configuration ought to place every position under some channel it cannot itself close; the net there has an outer layer, and at the national level the outer layer is gone, yet this still holds: external routes can stand alongside; for the corrections that must be implemented by this state, the taking-up is put together within this state; questions from outside are connected into the channels within this state (extension; own undertaking). For each of the six, four items are stated: who initiates it, which object it affects, whether the party questioned can close it, and how the account is booked when it fails; the fourth item is added by this series (own undertaking). Where a position does not act, and there is no substitute independent of it, it too becomes a "last" in fact, and it too lies under a channel. The channels inward are the closed loop, the channels internal subjects can initiate, and exit; exit does not stand in for questioning, is not the default first means, and there is no order requiring a person in danger to exhaust other channels before leaving (own undertaking). Outwardly, this state may decline to answer ordinary diplomatic questions between peers that carry no separate obligation to answer; the answering and implementation that the treaties and common procedures it has acknowledged require are carried out; answering and not answering are both questioned in the channels inside, and the questions of those whom this state's acts reach must have somewhere to land; a question from outside does not on its own count as a channel, and counts only once it connects to the channels inside. The state's name does not shield the bearing of positions and persons, and the construct's failure is not automatically transferred onto any one person; booking the account has at least three items: making decisions public and attributing them to positions and persons; those affected being able to ask and to be answered; a position at fault being subject to stricter confirmation thereafter; legal liability is left to specific law (own undertaking). Judgment and its consequences in particular situations fall, following the measure set out in the Prequel, §8, on the positions and persons of the political and military leaders in their positions. The close: how far each of the seven hard questions the upstream left to this series (the strong forms) has been answered; what has been taken on and not carried through is registered as it stands; each part of the remaining work has a destination; with this, the four steps on the side of institutions have completed this round of unfolding, which does not mean that the questions of institutions have been settled. A post-war inquiry commission runs through the paper, which interfaces in place with Kant. The paper has five propositions (N36 to N40), each stated at the end of its section and listed together at the end.
Writing Declaration: This paper was co-drafted with Claude (Anthropic). All intellectual decisions, framework design, and final editorial judgments were made by the author.
Introduction
In Year 12, the newly elected Chamber of Citizens of the United City-States of Ends (UCSE) set up a War Inquiry Commission. It has fifteen members, drawn in proportion to the seats, and it inquires into five matters: the crossing of the Boundary River; Directive No. 3, under which there was no organized evacuation of Reedtown; the strike on Junction Town; the holding and detention at the inspection points in the buffer zone; and the referendum on the fourteenth amendment to the Charter (Charter Amendment 14).
The state the UCSE fought this war against was the Democratic Republic of Purposes (DRP). The two states signed the Ceasefire Agreement and the Withdrawal Agreement at Three Borders, in the Nation Union of Telos (NUT); they did not sign a peace treaty. The state of war was terminated in the summer of Year 11.
The new Executive Council handed over the minutes of the Wartime Council of Three. The Office of Defense and the Office of Internal Security refused to hand over part of the files, on the ground that the material "concerns serving personnel and intelligence sources"; the commission has no power to compel production, and it has applied to the Final Court, where the case is still waiting.
The former First Executive appeared and testified: "Every decision I made went through the Council of Three and had the Assembly's declaration and authorization. The continued existence of the UCSE is the highest reason." The former Chief of the Defense Force set out his written opinion on the river crossing, and how he came to be removed; the two dissenting opinions of the former Executive for External Affairs, in the Executive Defense Group and in the Wartime Council of Three, were made public. The families of those killed in Reedtown, and the farmers of the West Flats, came to testify. The families of those killed in Junction Town are in the DRP; their written statements came through the liaison office at Three Borders; the commission discussed whether to accept them, and accepted them.
Answering the commission's question, the Prosecutor-General said: "No provision of current law makes wartime decision-making itself an offense."
Outside the commission, the DRP's Foreign Ministry has demanded compensation for the dead and injured of Junction Town, and has demanded that the three members of the Wartime Council of Three be handed over for trial; the Office of External Affairs has demanded compensation from the DRP for Reedtown. Negotiations between the two states on compensation are going on under the Withdrawal Agreement, and have reached no result. The Chamber of Citizens is discussing the establishment of a "War Victims' Compensation Fund"; on whether it would include the DRP civilians of Junction Town, the commission is divided.
Three things first. Whom it concerns: the families of those killed in Reedtown and in Junction Town; the farmers of the West Flats; those detained at the inspection points. Which line: the fifth ought (questioning and booking the account). Baseline: the several authorizations under the Charter and the Wartime Security Act.
The matter shows up several questions. The former First Executive says that every decision had authorization, and also that continued existence is the highest reason: put together, what do the two sentences say? To call for the files, the commission must first go and ask the Final Court: can those who question reach what they ask about? No offense covers wartime decision-making itself: if bearing does not pass through punishment, where else can it land? The Junction Town families' questions were sent through the liaison office, and whether to accept them was for the commission to discuss: do they have somewhere to land? The former First Executive is no longer in office: for the decisions he made in that position, where is the account booked?
The questions all come to the same place. There is no higher level above the UCSE. The supreme rule, the last instance, the emergency bearing on survival, the determinations to start a war and to cross the river: Papers 1 to 6 have treated them place by place: they are "lasts," and none of them is exempt from questioning. Under which channel each lies is listed place by place in §1. After the war, what remains to be asked is whether anyone still questions the last layer, and, once it has been questioned, where the account lands.
The answer runs in five steps. §1 lists, place by place, under which channel each of the six "lasts" lies; §2 treats the channels inward; §3, how questions from outside are connected in; §4, how bearing is located; §5 closes the whole series. Conventions follow the Prequel, §8; as the last paper of the series, this paper has no closing section of conversation, and the handovers downstream are carried in the Interfaces at its end.
§1 Every "Last" Lies Under a Channel It Cannot Itself Close
First, the word once more. "Last" refers to level: there is nothing above. It does not refer to exemption from questioning.
The former First Executive's sentence, "The continued existence of the UCSE is the highest reason," merges two things into one: there is no higher reason above, and so the questioning stops here. What this section has to do is to separate the two, place by place.
The Theory of Government's proposition, and its extension here. The Theory of Government has established: "Decisions can be final"; "Positions cannot be final." It also says: "Questioning does not need an unquestionable endpoint"; "a construct's configuration ought to place every position under some channel it cannot itself close" (Theory of Government Paper 6, G36). The net in that paper has an outer layer: Apple City's emergency order was within reach of the state ombudsman, and the state courts reached to actions (Theory of Government Paper 6, §4); "What several channels make together is a net, not a ladder with one person sitting at the top" (Theory of Government Paper 6, §3).
At the national level the outer layer is gone: inwardly, there is no higher level above it to govern it; outwardly, there is no higher level above it to govern what lies between it and other states (the Prequel, §6). Does that proposition still hold? It does. The ground of G36 lies not in the outer layer but in a sentence of Institution Theory: "An institution cannot acquire the standing of permanent exemption from questioning" (Institution Theory Z37). A state is a construct too. With the outer layer gone, what changes is where the net is put together. Inwardly, external routes can review independently and reach valid decisions; they are not presumed to be in fact weak, and those that are usable are used; for the class of corrections that require this state to do, or to stop, an act toward the people inside it, the step of landing is in this state, and there must be a taking-up at this level that the position questioned cannot monopolize (Paper 1, N5). Outwardly, questions coming from other states and from the people of other states must be connected into the channels within this state (§3). That proposition of the Theory of Government spoke of the positions of a level of government, with an outer layer in the net beneath them; here it is extended to the several "lasts" of a state, where there is no outer layer, and where there is an outward side besides. This step is undertaken by this series (extension; own undertaking).
The four items. To say that a "last" lies under a channel is to be able to state four items: who initiates it; which object it affects; whether the party questioned can close it; how the account is booked when it fails.
The first three follow the Theory of Government's three questions for the functions of control: who can activate it; what actual efficacy it has; how the party questioned cannot cancel it on its own (Theory of Government Paper 6, G36a). If it cannot be said who initiates it, the channel is there in name only; if it cannot be said what it affects, the question may be asked and still move nothing; if the party questioned can close it, it does not count as a channel over that party. "Cannot close" is read as in Paper 1, §6: the party questioned can make the decision for the case on a matter directed at itself, but cannot decide on its own whether this kind of questioning can be initiated thereafter; where for a time a correction cannot land, or several links are in a standoff, this is registered as a remainder.
The fourth item is added by this series. Institution Theory says that that series "gives no warrant for when questioning will happen, who will take it up, or how long it will last" (Institution Theory Z37); this series gives no warrant either. Where there is an outer layer, when one channel fails, the outer layer still has a route; at the national level there is no outer layer to take it up. So it must be stated in advance where the account lands when a channel cannot be got through, so that the failure itself does not write the account off (own undertaking).
What follows goes place by place. Paper 1, §4; Paper 2, §2; Paper 3, §§2, 3 and 6; Paper 4, the Introduction and §1; Paper 5, §§1 and 4; and Paper 6, the Introduction, have each written out these four items for the place in that paper; here they are put together.
The last rule. Above the supreme rule there is no higher rule. It lies under two routes: constitutional amendment, and questioning at the third layer (Paper 1, N3, N4). Initiating an amendment falls to internal subjects: referendums and elections. For questioning an amendment, Article 43 of the Charter (fact) names three kinds of requesting party: the government of a member unit; one quarter of the members of the Chamber of Citizens; those affected who have exhausted other remedies. The object affected is the proposing of an amendment and the vote on it. Can the party questioned close it? It cannot. Whether an amendment has changed the line is decided by the court for the case; whether this kind of judgment can be questioned again thereafter is decided neither by the court on its own nor by the side that proposed the amendment on its own (Paper 1, N3). When it fails, an amendment that has changed the line is booked as line-crossing: that the procedure was completed does not make it legitimate; an amendment that has withdrawn the conditions of being questioned lacks, at the third layer, the necessary condition of openness to questioning, and must be questioned; both can be taken back, and the account falls on the several positions that proposed it, voted on it, and organized the vote (N39).
Charter Amendment 14 (UCSE Case 04; three things at the opening of Paper 1) was proposed and voted on while emergency orders restricting assembly and broadcasting were in force. Paper 1, §3, reads its clauses 1 and 2: both withdrew the independence of the channels of being questioned; the procedure was completed, and they are valid at the second layer, but at the third layer they lack the necessary condition of openness to questioning, must be questioned, and can be taken back (N3); votes of this kind during the restrictions are blocked by function, following N4 (Paper 1, §4). Here only one post-war fact is added: the inquiry commission has listed that referendum as one of its five matters. The procedure was completed; the route for questioning it is still open.
The last instance. Above the last instance there is no higher instance. The decision is final in the case; the position lies under the closed loop (Paper 2, N7, N8). Those who initiate are the rule-making link (changing the rules, impeachment), retrial under new evidence or new problems, and internal subjects. The different channels affect the rules, the holding of office, and earlier readings; a case already closed is not reopened on the same grounds, but a retrial provided by law under new evidence or new problems can still correct the ruling in the case. Can it be closed? It cannot: whether questioning directed at the last instance itself can still be initiated thereafter is not decided by it alone (Paper 2, N8). When it fails, a standoff is registered as a remainder, left to the channels of internal subjects and to later amendment; in impeachment, recusal follows N11a, and whether there is suspension is not decided by the impeaching side alone either; the account falls as in N39. Paper 2, §2, has already laid out these four items separately along four routes: retrial, impeachment, changing the rules, and the channels of internal subjects.
UCSE Case 07 (three things at the opening of Paper 2) calls for a second look here. The government of the South Bay State and eighty-one members of the Chamber of Citizens requested, under Article 43, an interpretation of clause 1 of Charter Amendment 14, and the Final Court, sitting as a full court, ruled 6 to 5 that the election should be held within six months after the ceasefire took effect. The last instance did not close off questioning of itself: it was asked, and it answered. What jammed lay elsewhere. The Executive Council said that it "respects the Final Court," did not issue the election order, and tied the issuing of the order to the Assembly's terminating the state of war; the majority in the Chamber of Citizens did not move to terminate it; the election commissions of member units were willing to prepare, and were refused by letter. The Charter does not provide who carries out a ruling when an organ does not carry it out.
Here a "last" grew up that the constitutional order had not written down. When a position does not act, and there is no substitute independent of it, it becomes in fact the "last" on that matter: for that year, when the election would be held depended on the side that would not issue the order and on the majority that had elected it. This place too lies under a channel it cannot itself close (the last sentence of N36): the executing party may not substitute non-execution for disagreement; where it holds that execution itself crosses the line, it explains publicly, and the matter passes into review; until review is made, the ruling is carried out; the supreme rule must leave a function of substitute execution that does not depend on the refusing party (Paper 2, N11b). The Election Date Act of the summer of Year 11 ended the standoff; that it was ended does not mean that the voters' questions in that year ever had somewhere to land (§2).
The last exit. Leaving a state can only mean entering another peer, which must take one in; beyond that there is nothing further out. What has to be asked about here is a decision restricting exit (Paper 3, N13; §2 of this paper). The one who initiates is the person restricted: before the courts, before the Inspectorate. The object affected is that decision restricting exit. Can it be closed? It cannot, and it does not stop in war either (Theory of Government Paper 5, G30): even in a defensive war, departure is not restricted; once a person has left the country, he is not prosecuted for "refusing the call-up," whenever the call-up order was served; where charges for "refusing the call-up" were brought before departure, the case is heard as usual, but the person is not detained or banned from leaving on that account, nor is the case aggravated by departure; while that case is pending, renunciation is processed as usual; with the person abroad, this route too must be within reach; a person who has reported for service and is in service and who leaves his post is not covered by that proposition: that is the layer of the accountability of a position, handled through the courts (Paper 3, §2, N13). When it fails, the account for a restriction imposed without review is booked to the position that issued the order (Emergency Order No. 7 in UCSE Case 10; three things at the opening of Paper 3); as in N39. In the same place there are two more matters, revocation of citizenship and secession, whose four items Paper 3, §§3 and 6, has each written out; see the table below (N14, N16).
The last force. Above the armed forces there are no other armed forces; in the exception bearing on survival, no position becomes final because of survival (Paper 4, N18–N22). Those who initiate are the position that confirms an internal use of the armed forces (not monopolized by the commanding side), or a court ruling that by law must be enforced; the positions that confirm and terminate an emergency, the substitute confirming position written down in advance, and the Final Court reviewing emergency orders on request. The objects affected are the scope, place and term of that internal use of the armed forces; entry into the state of war and exit from it; the declaration, renewal and ending of an emergency. Can it be closed? It cannot: confirmation is not in the hands of the commanding side; when the exception ends is not determined by the party taking the measures (Paper 4, N21); powers established on wartime grounds expire when the war ends, without waiting for a decision to dismantle them; the end is recognized by function: hostilities have ceased, and the attacking side has withdrawn (Paper 4, N22). When it fails, for a use of the armed forces without confirmation, the part that exceeds is booked to the position and the person that gave the order; measures expire when their term runs out; the position that acted first must be questioned afterward.
In UCSE Case 19 (three things in Paper 4, §5) there is one item to be looked at here. The wartime surveillance of the Office of Internal Security needs only its Director's approval, not a court's; a transitional provision of the Wartime Security Act extends it to "the date on which the peace treaty with the DRP is signed." What the two states signed were two agreements, on the ceasefire and on withdrawal, and no peace treaty. In Year 12 the authorization is still there. Paper 4, §5, has read it under N22: the date of a peace treaty does not count as a term; the defending side's cannot-not for starting the war is an attack under way; the DRP army had already fallen back west of the Boundary River in the autumn of Year 9, and with the ceasefire in the spring of Year 10 hostilities ceased, so this cannot-not was dissolved and the authorization expired at that point; that it is still there afterward is a compulsion without ground going on. What is added here is the channel.
A peace treaty must be negotiated by the Office of External Affairs, signed by the First Executive and ratified by the joint session (Charter, Article 60, fact), and it also needs the other side's signature. With it as the term, when the surveillance ends is held in the hands of the Executive Council and of the adversary, not in an independent confirming position; this is exactly what N22 does not allow: what takes as its term a date that may never come is treated as having no term written (Paper 4, §5); it also runs in the same direction as N21, "when the exception ends is not determined by the party taking the measures." Surveillance, moreover, is secret: those under it mostly do not know that they are, and cannot initiate anything. So the channel here cannot rely on initiation by those affected alone; it must reach "a position that can activate it without waiting for the consent of the party questioned" (Theory of Government Paper 6, G36a). The Charter has such positions: the government of a member unit, and one quarter of the members of the Chamber of Citizens, can request review by the Final Court under Article 43, without waiting for the consent of the Office of Internal Security. Where the authorization is still there past the threshold, the account falls on the positions that keep it and act on it (N39).
One another, with no superior. Between states there is no third party that legislates for both (Paper 5, N24). This state may decline to answer ordinary diplomatic questions between peers that carry no separate obligation to answer; the requirements to answer and to implement that it bears under the treaties and common procedures it has acknowledged follow Paper 5, N24 and N27. There are two things it cannot close: peers judging for themselves on this basis, and withdrawing cooperation other than recognition (Paper 5, N26); and these questions entering the channels inside through this state's internal subjects (N37). Those who initiate are the peers, and the internal subjects of this state who connect the questions in. The object affected is this state's acts outward. When it fails, answering and not answering are both questioned in the channels inside (§3 of this paper, N38).
In UCSE Case 23 (three things in Paper 5, §3), the NUT's Council for External Affairs asked five questions; the Office of External Affairs answered two, and answered the other three with "This concerns wartime security; we are not in a position to reply," "a matter for the Kingdom State and Willow Ferry," and "an internal affair of the UCSE." Paper 5, §4, has checked the three replies question by question. Here only the two things they cannot close are looked at.
One is the NUT's own judgment. The Office of External Affairs asked the NUT to hand over the commentator whose citizenship had been revoked; the NUT's Council for External Affairs refused, 5 to 0, and replied that "the speech referred to is within the law of the NUT" (UCSE Case 11; three things in Paper 3, §3). This is an instance of a peer judging for itself and not cooperating; this state cannot close it, and does not judge in its place.
The other is the matter asked about itself. The second question asked about the holding at the inspection points in the buffer zone, and about the two hundred thirty people moved to the Western Plains State. Those two hundred thirty complained to the Inspectorate; under Article 17 of the Wartime Security Act, the Inspectorate passed the complaints to the Internal Investigations Division of the Office of Defense, which reviewed thirty of their files (UCSE Case 25; three things in Paper 6, §3). To say outwardly "we are not in a position to reply," where there is no separate obligation to answer, lies within this state's authority; inwardly, their questions were handed to a position belonging to the same office as the party questioned. Whether the route inside is controlled by the party questioned alone must be checked by the powers of taking up, closing and referring out; belonging to the same office is not enough to decide it. The outer door may be shut; if the inner door too is in the hands of the party questioned, both are shut. The fourth question went round in the same way: the Office of External Affairs pointed the question back to the state, and the state had long since passed it back to the UCSE (Paper 5, §4). The words "internal affair" say whose business it is; they do not say that the matter is not to be questioned.
On the side of treaties and common procedures, Paper 5, §1, has written out the four items for the Cloud River arbitration: the award is final in the case; the position that implements it is not final.
The last resort. Starting a war, expanding it and crossing the boundary are each a new decision, each with its own determination of the cannot-not, which is not monopolized by a single position, is time-limited, and is open to questioning (Paper 6, N30); single acts in combat are checked afterward against the criteria by a position independent of the commanding side (Paper 6, N33); where something cannot be held, it is questioned afterward and the account is booked (Paper 4, N21; N39 of this paper). Those who initiate are the determining positions not monopolized by the commanding side, the positions that check independently afterward, and those affected: the part that falls on the other side's people follows the unified sentence (§3; extension; own undertaking); for the other side's combatants in action, the limit on using force against them follows the methods-constraint of War Treatise §15, and this series sets up no other; those who have laid down their arms, been captured, or are wounded or sick come under the unified sentence (Paper 6, §3). The objects affected are starting a war, expanding it, crossing the boundary, and single acts in combat. Can it be closed? It cannot: the determination is time-limited and open to questioning; how far the checking goes is not set by the commanding side. When it fails, the account is booked by the minimum content of N39.
The ground of these channels lies in the War Treatise. Theorem Four says: "The war-party has no privilege of not being questioned" (War Treatise §16). It requires all four layers to pass: that questioning exists; that questioning can reach the core of decision-making; that those who question are protected; that the results of questioning actually affect decisions. "Only when all four layers pass does Theorem Four genuinely pass. If any one layer fails to hold, Theorem Four fails." (War Treatise §16; rendered from the Chinese page) The ought of the war-party falls on the state as a construct (Paper 6, N31), and Theorem Four is the ground of the channels at this place. The four layers run in the same direction as the Theory of Government's three conditions and its three questions of control (Theory of Government Paper 6, G35, G36a), and do not change the range of Theorem Four.
UCSE Case 06 (three things in Paper 1, §6) is an instance of where independence has to be checked at this place. In wartime, under Article 17 of the Wartime Security Act, complaints against the Defense Force and the Office of Defense were taken up by the Internal Investigations Division of the Office of Defense, whose head was appointed by the Executive for Defense; the public hearings of the Defense Committee of the Chamber of Citizens were suspended. For those two years, checking single acts in combat afterward fell within the office of the commanding side. Belonging to the same office and being appointed do not in themselves complete the judgment of whether there is independence: whether the Executive for Defense could, alone, shut off the taking up of complaints, rewrite how cases were closed, or control whether checking went on, the case file does not record, and it is to be checked by function. Article 17 expired with the termination of the state of war, and the Inspectorate's taking up of complaints against the Defense Force resumed. That it resumed does not write off the account of those two years: "past residue is not written off by closing off questioning" (Institution Theory Z35a). The inquiry commission has listed the inspection points and the detentions among its five matters, and this account once again has somewhere to be asked about.
The commission was blocked in calling for the files; unable to obtain them itself, it went to request the Final Court: where the inquiring side cannot reach, it reaches through another link, and this is exactly the closed loop at work (Paper 1, N5; §4).
The six together.
| Place | Who initiates | Which object it affects | Whether the party questioned can close it | How the account is booked when it fails |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The last rule (N3, N4) | Internal subjects (referendums, elections); the government of a member unit, one quarter of the members of the Chamber of Citizens, those affected who have exhausted other remedies (Charter, Article 43) | The proposing of an amendment and the vote on it | No: whether the line has been crossed, the court makes the decision for the case; whether it can be questioned again thereafter is decided neither by the court on its own nor by the side proposing the amendment on its own | One that has changed the line is booked as line-crossing; one that has withdrawn the conditions of being questioned must be questioned; both can be taken back; as in N39 |
| The last instance (N7, N8) | The rule-making link (changing the rules, impeachment); retrial under new evidence or new problems; internal subjects | The holding of office, the rules, and earlier readings; a closed case is not reopened on the same grounds, while under new evidence or new problems a retrial provided by law can correct it | No: whether questioning directed at itself can be initiated is not decided by it alone | A standoff is registered as a remainder; recusal in impeachment, and suspension not decided by the impeaching side alone (N11a); as in N39 |
| The "last" grown from not acting (N11b) | The rule-making and checking links; internal subjects | The executing party's non-execution | No: non-execution is not substituted for disagreement; until review is made, the ruling is carried out; substitute execution does not depend on the refusing party | Booked to the position that does not carry it out; where the substitute function is missing, booked to the construct; as in N39 |
| The last exit (N13, N37) | The person whose exit is restricted, for whom the route must be within reach while abroad too (the courts, the Inspectorate) | The decision restricting exit; prosecution for "refusing the call-up" after departure; where charges for "refusing the call-up" were brought before departure, the case is heard as usual, but the person is not detained or banned from leaving on that account, nor is the case aggravated by departure; while that case is pending, renunciation is processed as usual | No; it does not stop in war either | A restriction imposed without review is booked to the position that issued the order; as in N39 |
| Revocation of citizenship (N14) | The person whose citizenship is revoked, for whom the route must be within reach while abroad too | The revocation decision and its consequences | No: whether the route is within reach is checked against the several positions together | The account for the revocation and for the several provisions that block the route is booked to the positions that made them; as in N39 |
| Secession (N16) | The people of the exiting unit, and its organs | The claim of group exit, and the procedure itself | No: initiation is not decided unilaterally by the national level | Where there is no usable procedure, booked to the construct; the remainders are registered as they stand (N17) |
| The last force (N18–N22) | A confirming position not monopolized by the commanding side, or a court ruling that by law must be enforced (internal use of the armed forces); the confirming and substitute confirming positions; the Final Court (review of emergency orders); for secret acts, in addition, a position that does not wait for those affected to initiate | The scope, place and term of that internal use of the armed forces; entry into the state of war and exit from it; the declaration, renewal and ending of an emergency | No: confirmation is not in the hands of the commanding side; the end is not determined by the party taking the measures; taking as its term a date that may never come does not count as a term | For a use of the armed forces without confirmation, the part that exceeds is booked to the position and the person that gave the order; expiry when the term runs out; the position that acted first must be questioned afterward |
| One another, with no superior (N26, N37) | Peers; this state's internal subjects, connecting the questions in | This state's acts outward | It may decline to answer ordinary diplomatic questions between peers that carry no separate obligation to answer; requirements to answer under acknowledged treaties and common procedures follow N24 and N27; it cannot close the peers' own judgment and withdrawal of cooperation, nor these questions' entry through the channels inside | Answering and not answering are both questioned in the channels inside (N38) |
| The last resort (N30, N21, N39) | Determining positions not monopolized by the commanding side; positions that check independently afterward; those affected (following the unified sentence); for the other side's combatants in action, the limits of force follow the methods-constraint of War Treatise §15, with no other set up, and those who have laid down their arms, been captured, or are wounded or sick follow the unified sentence | Starting a war, expanding it, crossing the boundary, and single acts in combat | No: the determination is time-limited and open to questioning; the scope of checking is not set by the commanding side | The minimum content of N39 |
What this table states are requirements, not certifications: it does not say that the UCSE met them in Years 9 to 12. The several matters above, UCSE Cases 07, 19 and 23, have each been checked case by case in their papers: not one of them was closed because there was nothing above. The ways of closing were all quite ordinary: not issuing an order; taking as the term a date that may never come; saying outwardly "internal affair." There is another kind that has to be checked: complaints and checking are passed into the office of the party questioned, and conducted by people it appoints (UCSE Cases 25 and 06); belonging to the same office and being appointed do not of themselves prove a lack of independence, and whether taking up, closing and referring out are monopolized by the party questioned is checked by function. A "last" does not grow into exemption from questioning by itself; it is a particular configuration that turns it into exemption from questioning.
So what has to be checked is not whether there is anyone above a state, but whether under each of its "lasts" there is a route it cannot close.
N36 Every "last" lies under a channel it cannot itself close. Theory of Government G36 says that a construct's configuration ought to place every position under some channel it cannot itself close; extended to the several "lasts" of a state, the net has no outer layer: external routes can stand alongside; for corrections that must be implemented by this state, the taking-up is put together within this state; questions from outside are connected into the channels within this state (extension; own undertaking). The last rule lies under constitutional amendment and questioning at the third layer (N3, N4); the last instance lies under the closed loop (N7, N8); the last exit: a decision restricting exit lies under the closed loop and the channels of internal subjects (N13, N37), and revocation of citizenship and secession likewise each lie under channels the party questioned cannot close (N14, N16); the last force lies under non-monopoly and questioning afterward (N20, N21); one another, with no superior: this state may decline to answer ordinary diplomatic questions between peers that carry no separate obligation to answer (requirements to answer under the treaties and common procedures it has acknowledged follow N24 and N27), and what it cannot close is peers judging for themselves on this basis and withdrawing cooperation other than recognition (N26), and these questions entering the channels inside through this state's internal subjects (N37); the last resort lies under the non-monopoly of the determination (N30) and under inquiry and booking the account afterward (N21, N39), and Theorem Four is the ground of these channels (N31). For every channel it must be stated who initiates it, which object it affects, whether the party questioned can close it, and how the account is booked when it fails; the first three follow the three questions of Theory of Government G36a, and the fourth is undertaken by this series (own undertaking). Where a position does not act, and there is no substitute independent of it, it becomes a "last" in fact; this place too lies under a channel, and is checked under Paper 2, N11b.
§2 Channels Inward
The Theory of Government has written about the resident of Orchard Court in Apple City: every day she swipes her entry card to go in and out of her building; her car is parked in one of the complex's surface parking spaces; her child attends a city elementary school; the license for her line of work is issued by the Kingdom State (Theory of Government Paper 4, §§1 and 7). She is within the UCSE too.
She holds UCSE citizenship and a UCSE passport, and pays the UCSE's income tax; from Year 9 she also paid the wartime surtax, and from Year 12 this tax was renamed the "West Flats reconstruction tax." In the winter of Year 9 the Chamber of Citizens was due for re-election; the election was postponed to the autumn of Year 11. From the spring of Year 11, Apple City's flood warnings have used upstream data sent by the NUT every hour. Around Levee Street there are people from the Willow Ferry Reception Center doing casual work. She is not at the front, not in the buffer zone, not in the reception center; the war reached her through the tax, through the postponed election, through the data on the river (UCSE Case 29).
If she wants to ask about something at the UCSE level, why the election was postponed, for instance, there are five roads she can take: the election to the Chamber of Citizens; a complaint to the Inspectorate; a request to the Final Court once other remedies are exhausted; the five members of the Chamber of Member Units sent by the State Legislature of the Kingdom State; renouncing UCSE citizenship.
Three things first. Whom it concerns: this resident. Which line: the fifth ought (her routes for asking at the UCSE level); the "not sealing the channels" half of the fourth ought (renunciation). Baseline: how things were before the war: the Chamber of Citizens was re-elected on schedule, the Inspector-General was elected by the joint session, and declarations of renunciation were not suspended by age.
Three kinds of channel. There are three kinds of channel inward: the closed loop; the channels internal subjects can initiate; exit.
The closed loop lies between positions: checking questions rule-making and execution, rule-making questions checking, and execution questions no party by non-execution; it only executes; where it holds that execution itself crosses the line, it explains publicly, and the matter passes into review within the closed loop, a review not conducted by it (Paper 1, N5; Paper 2, N8, N11b). What it requires is that, within the class of checks that must be taken up at this level, no link can permanently close off questioning of itself. What Paper 1 derived is the implementation of this class of corrections at this level, and the forming of a loop over the set of positions already established; at least one independent position of checking judgment at this level, full separation of the three at this level, and day-to-day checking judgment carried by checking at this level are undertaken separately, following Theory of Government G26 (Paper 1, N5). Yet the positions within the closed loop can come to stand together: the majority that confirmed the state of emergency, and the First Executive who declared it, came by and large from the same majority (UCSE Case 16; three things in Paper 2, §1). That they came from one majority does not by itself prove that the confirmation was not independent (Paper 4, §3); what must be guarded against is that, when they really do stand together, there is no route beyond the positions' control.
That is the second kind: the channels internal subjects can initiate. They are checked by the three conditions in the Theory of Government: "it is independent of the party questioned, internal subjects can actually initiate it, and initiating it brings no retaliation" (Theory of Government Paper 6, G35, citing Institution Theory Z34). Independence is functional, is checked against the party actually questioned, and must be checked again when the level changes (ibid.).
The two complement each other. The positions in the closed loop have efficacy, but they can stand together, and then none of them initiates anything; the questions of internal subjects do not line up with positions, but to land as efficacy they still have to pass through positions in the closed loop: the functions of control can be carried jointly by several positions (Theory of Government Paper 6, G36a).
The third kind is exit, which acts on the relation itself. At the national level exit can only be lateral, and needs another peer to take one in (the Prequel, §6; Paper 1, §5); it cannot carry the day-to-day check.
Her five roads. By the three conditions, the state each of the five roads was in during those years:
| Road | Its state in Years 9 to 12 | By the three conditions |
|---|---|---|
| The election to the Chamber of Citizens | Due in the winter of Year 9, postponed under clause 1 of Charter Amendment 14; in the summer of Year 10 the Final Court ruled that it be held within six months after the ceasefire, and the Executive Council did not issue the election order; held in the autumn of Year 11 | The voting-position: periodic, not a channel that is always open. In the first stretch, when the election would come lay in the hands of the side the election questions (Paper 1, §3); in the second, in the hands of the Executive Council that would not issue the order and the majority that had elected it (Paper 2, §4). The party questioned set when it would itself be questioned: independence did not pass |
| The Inspectorate | She can complain; from the spring of Year 10 to the spring of Year 12, the acting Inspector-General was appointed by the Executive Council, and in two years there were no public reports; in wartime, complaints against the Defense Force were passed to the Internal Investigations Division | Within reach. Independence must be checked separately against the Executive Council and against the specific party complained against; appointment does not in itself certify a lack of independence: what is looked at is whether taking up, closing, referring out and delivery are monopolized by the party questioned (Paper 1, §6). No public reports in two years is a lead for checking; whether the office has been hollowed out still requires checking its actual replies, corrections and delivery; and even if it has, "hollowing-out by itself does not certify capture" (Theory of Government Paper 6, G38) |
| The Final Court | A request can be made once other remedies are exhausted; under the state of war, declaring an emergency order contrary to the Charter required eight of the eleven judges; the election ruling of the summer of Year 10 was not carried out | Within reach, and independent. Its efficacy was cut in two places: the threshold was raised by an amendment the party questioned had submitted (UCSE Case 16: seven judges held the detention clause contrary to the Charter, short of eight); and when the ruling came to be carried out, there was no substitute independent of the refusing party (UCSE Case 07) |
| Members of the Chamber of Member Units | Five, sent by the State Legislature of the Kingdom State | She cannot make them do anything; she can reach them only through the level of the Kingdom State. The Chamber of Member Units does not come from the majority in the Chamber of Citizens, and has votes on constitutional amendment, on trying impeachments, and on terminating the state of war. This is an entry point to the closed loop, not by itself a channel |
| Renouncing UCSE citizenship | The renunciation settlement tax and the renunciation fee must be paid; during the state of war, Emergency Order No. 7 suspended declarations of renunciation by age; whether she falls within that age range is not set here | Exit, acting on the relation itself; it cannot answer the matter she wants to ask about |
This is the state of those years, not a characterization of the UCSE. What can be read off it: of the two most direct roads, when the election would come lay in the hands of the party questioned, and the acting head of the Inspectorate was appointed by that party, with independence to be checked by function; the Final Court was within reach, and its efficacy was cut in two places, at the threshold and at execution; the road through the Chamber of Member Units is an entry point to the closed loop; renunciation is exit.
The Theory of Government says: "Having the voting-position does not replace being open to questioning; being open to questioning does not replace the voting-position either" (Theory of Government Paper 6, §7). In that year the voting-position was pushed aside; as for the road that is always open, whether it was independent is to be checked by function, and the case file does not record that layer.
If she wants to ask "the last layer" about something, where does she go first? This series does not decide for her; whether to ask is her own affair (Institution Theory Z36). It requires only this: on that matter, there is at least one road that is within reach, not in the hands of the party questioned, and brings no retaliation for its use, and where the road leads there is a position that can make what is asked about move. For Apple City's affairs, she still has the Kingdom State's ombudsman above her (Theory of Government Paper 6, §1); for the UCSE's affairs, there is no further outer layer above; external routes that are usable are used, but for anything that requires the UCSE to do, or to stop, an act toward her, the step of landing is within the UCSE (Paper 1, N5).
Exit. The fifth road must be treated on its own.
The Theory of Government says: "Exit does not stand in for questioning" (Theory of Government Paper 4, G27). Her renouncing UCSE citizenship cannot answer why the election was postponed. This road is open to two misuses, and both must be blocked.
One is to treat exit as the default first means for every matter. "If you are not satisfied, you can leave," given as the answer to a question, answers nothing; exit at the national level can only be lateral, and the settlement tax and the renunciation fee must be paid besides; for the party questioned to dismiss questioning with it is to replace a low-cost road with the costliest one. Exit is her road, not a phrase the party questioned can use to answer her.
The other is the reverse: to put exit at the very end, allowed only once other channels have been exhausted. For a person in danger, waiting is the danger: if complaints and lawsuits must be gone through before leaving, exit opens only after the danger has already fallen. So no such order is set: exit is placed neither first nor last; it stands alongside the other roads, and its activation lies with the one who leaves (Theory of Government Paper 6, G39; Paper 3, N13). This step is undertaken by this series (own undertaking): what the upstream gives is the criterion for not sealing off exit (Rights Theory P5 F21, via Theory of Government Paper 6, G39), and it says nothing of order; here an order too is read as a form of sealing, and only for a person in danger.
N37 Channels inward. The closed loop (N5, N8); the channels internal subjects can initiate, under the three conditions of Theory of Government G35: independent of the party questioned, internal subjects can actually initiate them, and initiating them brings no retaliation; exit (N13). Exit does not stand in for questioning (Theory of Government G27), nor is it the default first means for every matter; there is no order requiring a person in danger to exhaust other channels before leaving (own undertaking).
§3 Outward: Peers' Questions Connect to the Channels Inside
Back to the few pages of statements from the Junction Town families.
In the winter of Year 9, the Wartime Council of Three approved a strike on the railway junction at Junction Town. At 7:40 a.m., the strike hit the junction and the station's waiting hall; the Office of Defense's target memorandum read "Passenger train times not verified" (UCSE Case 25; three things in Paper 6, §3). The families of the dead are in the DRP. After the war they wrote down their statements, which came through the liaison office at Three Borders to the commission; the commission discussed whether to accept them, and accepted them.
This section asks how this state takes in questions that come from outside.
Where the questions come from. With no superior above, external questioning comes from three places: other states, for instance the NUT's note of inquiry, and the DRP Foreign Ministry's demand that the three be handed over for trial; the people of other states, for instance the Junction Town families; and common procedures both parties have acknowledged, and authorized external mechanisms, for instance the Cloud River arbitration (Paper 5, §1), and the compensation negotiations conducted under the Withdrawal Agreement (Paper 5, N24, N27). The War Treatise says that the questioning of Theorem Four "may come from within one's own ranks, from within the other side's ranks, from third parties, from future history" (War Treatise §16); the Junction Town families, the NUT and the post-war inquiry commission each stand at one of these.
This state may decline to answer. Having no common superior does not of itself give rise to an obligation to answer every diplomatic question between peers item by item; requirements to answer under existing treaties and common procedures follow N24 and N27 separately. This state may decline to answer ordinary diplomatic questions between peers that carry no separate obligation to answer: when the DRP demands that the UCSE hand people over for trial, the UCSE, if it has no separate obligation, may decline to hand them over; when the NUT asks five questions, the Office of External Affairs may answer only two.
Answering and not answering are both questioned inside. That this state may decline to answer is said of peers' ordinary diplomatic questions. The decision not to answer is itself an act, made by this state's positions and taking effect in this state's name, and it answers to the people inside this state: why the Office of External Affairs answered only two questions, and on what grounds it said "internal affair," the Chamber of Citizens can ask, and internal subjects can ask (N37).
More important is the matter asked about itself. Of the five matters the NUT asked about, the strike on Junction Town, the holding at the inspection points, the dead at West Pass, the drinking water at the reception center, and one commentator's citizenship, not one is the NUT's own affair; what is asked about is, each time, people whom the UCSE's acts reach. Even if this state may decline to answer outwardly, these people's own questions must have somewhere to land (the three replies have been checked question by question in Paper 5, §4).
This step is undertaken by this series (own undertaking). The grounds are in two layers. First, the "may decline to answer" above is confined to ordinary diplomatic questions between peers that carry no separate obligation to answer, and rests on there being no third party between two states that legislates for both (Paper 5, N24); this speaks of what lies between two states, and does not change this state's fifth ought toward the people inside it (Institution Theory Z34). Second, if what a peer asks about falls on people inside this state, not answering outwardly cannot stand in for answering inwardly: these are two doors.
Where the Junction Town families' questions land. Following the unified sentence:
Those whom this state's acts reach and who have no way to avoid them by exiting are, as regards those acts, in this state's interior; the five oughts apply each on its own conditions (Institution Theory Z4: "the five oughts apply each on its own conditions and are not reduced for want of a position"): the first and fifth oughts (a channel that is independent, within reach, and brings no retaliation for its use) and the "not sealing the channels" half of the fourth do not vary with relational thickness; the trigger of the second does not vary with it, and its means are bounded by this state's authority at that place; the third ought, and the "leaving room" half of the fourth, go by relational thickness (the Institution Theory Prequel, §7, the entry "Relational thickness"). This confers no membership (N12).
As regards that strike on Junction Town, the families are in the UCSE's interior (Paper 6, N32; extension; own undertaking). The fifth ought is not reduced for them: they must have a road that is within reach, independent of the party questioned, and brings no retaliation for its use.
This time, their questions landed. The landing depended on two places: the liaison office was willing to pass them on, and the commission, after discussion, was willing to accept them. Had either been unwilling, this route would not have got through; whether there is another route within their reach that they can initiate without the consent of the party questioned, the case file does not record. The Inspectorate takes up complaints from "UCSE citizens and persons lawfully resident within the UCSE" (UCSE Case 25); this existing scope does not automatically take in all the Junction Town families, and whether each of them falls within it, and how questions from those outside it are taken up, must both be explained. A route that gets through only if others are willing cannot yet certify that "can actually initiate" has been met; and the commission is temporary besides.
This is the place N38 speaks of. The questions of peers and of the people of other states, delivered to the door through diplomacy, are not yet a channel; they count as one only once they connect to a road inside that is within reach, independent and free of retaliation (N37). How they are to be connected, this paper fixes no form for.
No retaliation, and no treating them as hostility. Toward peers' questions, this state's undertaking has two further parts: no retaliation in response (Paper 5, N27); and not treating them as hostility, which is this paper's own (N38). The Office of External Affairs sent the NUT a counter-note; a question in return is not retaliation, and asking each other and answering each other is just what diplomacy carrying questioning looks like; the matter in which questions and exchanges were entangled, Paper 5, §4, has checked (UCSE Case 20). The DRP's demands come from a side that fought the war; when it demands that people be handed over, this state, without a separate obligation, may decline to hand them over; what it asks about, who approved the strike and who failed to verify the passenger train times, is this state's own account, and does not cease to count as a question because the one asking is an adversary.
The compensation fund. Whether the fund the Chamber of Citizens is discussing should include the DRP civilians of Junction Town, this paper does not decide on its behalf. Compensation lies outside the minimum content of booking the account, and is left to specific law (§4). What can be said goes this far and no further: if they are not included, why must be explained, and the explanation must be given to them; "they are people of another state" cannot serve on its own as the reason. As regards that strike on Junction Town, they are in this state's interior, following the unified sentence (extension; own undertaking).
N38 Outward, peers' questions connect to the channels inside. With no superior, external questioning comes from other states, from the people of other states, and from common procedures both parties have acknowledged and authorized external mechanisms (N24, N27). This state may decline to answer ordinary diplomatic questions between peers that carry no separate obligation to answer; the requirements to answer and to implement that it bears under the treaties and common procedures it has acknowledged still follow N24 and N27, and the questions of those whom this state's acts reach still follow the unified sentence. Answering and not answering are themselves both open to questioning in this state, and are questioned in the channels inside (own undertaking); this state's undertaking is to let these questions have somewhere to land, not to retaliate in response, and not to treat them as hostility. A peer's question does not on its own count as a channel; it counts only once it connects to N37.
§4 Bearing Can Be Located
Back to the former First Executive's two sentences.
"Every decision I made went through the Council of Three and had the Assembly's declaration and authorization." This sentence answers at the second of the layers the Theory of Government distinguishes. A government's decision is answered in three layers: "its effect in fact; under what authority and procedure it is valid; on what grounds it may normatively be so" (Theory of Government Paper 1, G6). The state of war was declared by both chambers, and the Council of Three was in charge of the Defense Force under Article 54 of the Charter (fact): these are matters of the second layer. The river crossing was not put to a separate vote in the Assembly; the Executive Council's view was that it was "already covered by the declaration of the state of war"; whether the crossing required a determination of its own, Paper 6, §1, has checked under N30. The second layer has been answered; the third remains: on what grounds it may normatively be so. Authorization does not settle the account on the decision's behalf.
"The continued existence of the UCSE is the highest reason." This sentence does something else. It puts continued existence above every reason, which amounts to saying: the questioning stops here. Institution Theory says: "The construct's own continued existence is not an independent sufficient reason to close off questioning, or to continue a particular arrangement automatically" (Institution Theory Z38). Paper 4 says that the exception bearing on survival does not produce a sovereign (Paper 4, N20). The War Treatise takes away the grammar of such talk: "'Cannot-not' strips the war-party of sovereign grammar — it is not 'I have the right to start the war / expand / refuse questioning,' but 'I am forced by structure to this point.'" (War Treatise, the opening of the Middle Volume) "The highest reason" is a "last" too, and it lies under a channel: the one who says it sits before the commission, and is being questioned.
Put together, one sentence hands the account over to authorization, and the other hands the question over to continued existence. Both move bearing out of the way.
Two directions. The former First Executive's two sentences use the state's name to cover positions and persons. In UCSE Case 28 there is one more matter, which bears on the opposite direction. The DRP Foreign Ministry has demanded that the three be handed over for trial; this demand in itself is not yet an automatic transfer of the construct's failure onto the three; if the whole of the construct's failure were attributed to the three only because they sat together on the Council of Three, that would be the error in the opposite direction. Whether each has a responsibility with independent grounds is still checked separately by source, authority, registration and the facts of conduct; the case file does not give the DRP's specific reasons for attributing responsibility. Institution Theory says: "The construct's name does not shield an individual responsibility that has independent grounds, and the construct's failure is not automatically transferred onto any one person" (Institution Theory Paper 1, Z6). Using the state's name to cover an individual, and automatically transferring the construct's failure onto an individual merely because the construct has failed: neither direction holds.
Where bearing falls follows the three-layer sentence form: the construct takes the ought, the position takes accountability, the person takes his own law. The UCSE as a construct ought to be open to questioning, and its configuration must place each of its "lasts" under a channel (N36); the gaps in its configuration (for instance, that the Charter has no function of substitute execution; for instance, the lack of a road within reach for the people of the buffer zone and of Junction Town, if they have none elsewhere either) are an account for the construct, and are not transferred onto any one person. The Executive Defense Group and the Wartime Council of Three, the First Executive, the Executive for Defense, the head of the Internal Investigations Division, and the Director of the Office of Internal Security are positions; they hold the burden of explanation and the burden of bearing, and "bearing is booked separately by source, authority, registration and conduct" (Theory of Government Paper 1, G2). The people sitting in these positions each have their own law; this series writes no ought for them.
Directive No. 3 was issued by the Executive Defense Group 2 to 1, and the river crossing was decided by the Wartime Council of Three 2 to 1; the Executive for External Affairs voted against both times, and the dissent is on paper; the Chief's written opinion is on paper. With the record there, the accounts can be told apart: in one and the same decision, those for it and those against it are not booked as a single account. Paper 4, §6, divided the account of the one hundred forty people of Reedtown into three: the DRP army's shelling; Directive No. 3 and the passes; the fighting itself. Each is booked by source, authority and the facts of conduct, and no entry settles another.
After the person has left. The former First Executive is no longer in office. The person leaves; the position remains: "Decisions can be final"; "Positions cannot be final" (Theory of Government Paper 6, G36). The decisions he made in that position are booked first to that position; when the new Executive Council handed over the records, it was precisely this account it took up. His own share that has independent grounds, for instance what he said and what he signed, is booked to him, and is not written off by his leaving office (Institution Theory Paper 1, Z6). Leaving office ends the occupancy, not the account.
Who judges, who shoulders. Paper 6, §3, divided two accounts: whether an act is within the cannot-not is one; whether the part of it that falls on a particular person crosses the line is the other. For the people in the waiting hall at Junction Town station, what crosses is booked as crossing the line, and is not renamed "the cost of war"; to book it as crossing the line is not to say that the act was impermissible in the first place. What is taken up here is where the second account lands.
How the political and military leaders in their positions judge, and where the consequences fall, follows the Prequel, §8. In this case: whether to strike Junction Town, and whether to cross the river, were judgments of the people on the Council of Three, and the consequences fall on their positions and on them as persons. "Shoulder" names the address of the account; it adds no further kind of responsibility beyond N39: the account is booked by the minimum content below, and legal liability is still left to specific law.
Calling for the files. The Office of Defense and the Office of Internal Security refused to hand over part of the files. What this refusal blocks is the first step of booking the account: without a record, the account cannot land on positions and persons. That reason may be true; how much it can protect is not decided by the refusing side alone: whether something can be asked again "is not decided by the place that made the decision on its own" (Theory of Government Paper 6, G36). The commission has gone to request the Final Court, and the case is still waiting. While it waits, the account is not written off; when the ruling comes, it is carried out as ruled, not carried out selectively by the refusing side (Paper 2, N11b).
No offense. The Prosecutor-General said that no provision of current law makes wartime decision-making itself an offense. If bearing does not pass through punishment, where else can it land?
This series answers: bearing is not punishment. Booking the account has at least three items (own undertaking): - decisions and reasons are made public, and records are attributed to particular positions and persons; - those affected can ask about it in an independent channel, and receive an answer; - a position at fault is subject to stricter confirmation in decisions of the same kind thereafter.
Whether there is legal liability besides is left to specific law. This series creates no offenses.
Why these three. The first gives every place in the table in §1 an object that can be asked: the one who asks has to know whom to ask. When the Theory of Government speaks of "a final bearer," one of its readings is: "if it means that every account lands on a position that can be named, it does" (Theory of Government Paper 6, G36); the record is the step by which it does. The second is what the fifth ought looks like after the fact: a channel that is independent, within reach, and free of retaliation (Theory of Government Paper 6, G35), and that is not withdrawn when the case is closed either (Paper 2, N11). The third gives what is asked about efficacy: where things are only recorded and never changed, the question may be asked and still move nothing (Theory of Government Paper 6, G36a). What is changed is the position, not the person sitting in it: for decisions of the kind of the river crossing, later determinations must, beyond not being monopolized by a single position under Paper 6, N30, also pass stricter confirmation. None of the three relies on punishment, and none excludes it.
The farmers of the West Flats. The farmers of UCSE Case 09 (three things in Paper 2, §5) came to testify. In the summer of Year 9, the Office of Defense requisitioned farmland in the northern part of the West Flats to build defensive lines; the compensation was one third of market price, "to be taken up after the war." A panel of the Final Court dismissed the suit 3 to 2; the acting Inspector-General replied: "This case has been finally decided; the Inspectorate will not take it up further." In Year 12 the land is still being used by the Office of Defense.
Check this account by the three items. The record is there: the compensation schedule and "to be taken up after the war" were both made by the Office of Defense and took effect in the UCSE's name. "To be taken up after the war" wrote its own condition into it: after the war. Paper 4, §5, has read it: once the condition is met, the taking-up should begin; it was met with the ceasefire in the spring of Year 10, and it is not for the side using the land to set it otherwise. The account falls on the Office of Defense, which uses the land, and on the Executive Council, which can make it take the matter up; what the construct's side must answer is why in three years the taking-up never began, and whether there is a road within the farmers' reach that can bring this matter into review; the case file has not yet given such a road. As for asking: the closing of the case at the final instance does not withdraw questioning of the compensation schedule as a rule, or of the recusal procedure itself (Paper 2, N11); the sentence "will not take it up further" read the closing of a case as exemption from questioning. The commission is temporary; what the second item requires is an independent channel, not a single hearing. From now on, a requisition that puts "to be taken up after the war" in place of compensation must pass stricter confirmation.
N39 Bearing can be located (carried over from Theory of Government G36; Institution Theory Z6). The state's name does not shield the bearing of positions and persons, and the construct's failure is not automatically transferred onto any one person. The minimum content of booking the account (own undertaking): decisions and reasons made public, records attributed to particular positions and persons; those affected can ask about it in an independent channel and receive an answer; a position at fault is subject to stricter confirmation in decisions of the same kind thereafter. Whether there is legal liability besides is left to specific law.
§5 The Close
This paper is the last of the series. The close has three parts: what has been answered, and how far it goes; the work remaining, and where it is sent; where the whole series stops.
What has been answered, and how far it goes. The question of this series is: when there is no regulator of force at a higher level above it, how does a state answer: how does each of its "lasts" still guard the line and remain open to questioning? The range sentence is:
How a construct that has no regulator of force at a higher level above it, inwardly or outwardly, guards the line, answers, and remains open to questioning at its several "lasts" (the last rule, the last instance, the last exit, the last force, one another, with no superior, the last resort).
The channels of the six places are listed place by place in §1.
Of the strong forms the upstream left to the Theory of the State, the Theory of Government has said: "Leaving the strong form to the Theory of the State is a division of work; it does not mean that the Theory of the State has already obtained its proof" (the Theory of Government Prequel, §8). So wherever the strong form is taken, the proof is given in this series; the part that cannot be proved is written, as it is, as undertaken separately (SF1). The seven rows, looked back on row by row:
| Row | Strong form | Disposition | Where answered | How far it goes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF1 | The multi-branch separation of powers is a structural necessity at the national scale; the right to question can be realized at the national scale only through the multi-branch separation of powers | Taken, confined to the class of corrections that must be realized by this state; part is derived, and the rest is undertaken separately | Paper 1, §§5 and 6 (N5) | Scope: the class of corrections that require this state to do, or to stop, an act toward its internal subjects. Proved: this class of corrections requires implementation at this level that the position questioned cannot monopolize; taking the positions already established at this level as the set, every position is checked by another independent position at this level, at least forming a closed loop. Undertaken separately: this level retains the separation of the three, and checking at this level carries the day-to-day checking judgment for this class of corrections; this is a normative undertaking following Theory of Government G26, and it includes at least one independent position of checking judgment at this level; the derivation does not serve as its proof. External routes can independently reach valid decisions, and stand alongside; they are not presumed to be in fact weak (Theory of Government G27). "Only" is taken as far as separation in function; read as one particular form of agencies, it is not taken; by which configurations of agencies a closed loop separated in function is realized is left as a remainder |
| SF2 | Wartime structures must be dismantled after the war on one's own initiative | Taken | Paper 4, §5 (N22) | The end of the war is the threshold of expiry, and the end is recognized by function: hostilities have ceased, and the attacking side has withdrawn; on the facts of the UCSE cases (the DRP army having fallen back west of the Boundary River in the autumn of Year 9), the ceasefire reaches the threshold; remaining stationed on the other side's land after the ceasefire is an expansion requiring its own determination (Paper 6, N30, N33), and the renewals and wartime powers of the year from the ceasefire to the withdrawal have no wartime ground. Functions still needed in peacetime are established anew as new decisions carrying their own terms, and are not continued on wartime grounds. Whether hostilities have a recognizable endpoint is recognized by function, and is not determined by the party taking the measures alone; wartime powers have their term written at the time of authorization, confirmed by a position that the party taking the measures does not occupy; once it is determined that hostilities have no recognizable endpoint, powers that have no term written, or that take as their term a date that may never come, are re-established within a short period written down beforehand as new decisions with a written term and confirmed, or expire when that period runs out; when the term runs out, continuation is the prolongation of time that Theorem Two lists, and is determined afresh under Paper 6, N30 (taking up Theorem Three of the War Treatise; own undertaking). Since it is recognized by function, renaming and continuing is checked all the same. How long the "short period" is: see the remainders below |
| SF3 | The sovereign decides on the exception | Not taken | Paper 4, §§3 and 4 (N20, N21); Paper 4, §8 | Survival gives a position a reason to judge first; it gives it no reason to monopolize shutting the door; the determination is not monopolized; the confirming and substitute confirming positions are there in advance; where none of them can act, measures are confined to the shortest term written down in advance. It does not guarantee that every extreme situation can be operated successfully |
| SF4 | The construct as a whole possesses subjecthood outwardly | Not taken | The Prequel, §1 | A state is a construct, not a subject; this does not cancel its legal status, or attribution to it |
| SF5 | The determinations of the constitutional court carry the highest authority | Narrowed | Paper 2, §1 (N7) | The last authority belongs to the decision and does not reach the position; the position lies under the closed loop. The closed loop does not guarantee that a standoff has a solution on the spot; a standoff is registered as a remainder (N8) |
| SF6 | Exiting the reorganization space of the defeated party's subjectivity after the war | Taken up | Paper 6, §5 (N34) | Occupation may not become colonization; for an observation point, the source of its authority, its manner of entry, what it may do and the arrangement for withdrawal are explained first. The form of stationing troops is not judged |
| SF7 | Group exit (secession) requires federal consent | Not taken | Paper 3, §6 (N16) | A procedure is established: secession is not vetoed unilaterally by the national level, nor are all common matters disposed of with finality by one side's unilateral declaration; the procedure does not claim to be complete, and states at least four remainders. The form of the procedure, and how long the reasonable interval after it is completed should be, are not fixed |
The accounts received from upstream were settled row by row in the Prequel, §9; the blocks handed over expressly are distributed among Papers 3 to 6. Of the two blocks handed over tacitly: for the stretch of "14DD against 14DD," Paper 6, N33, sets up its own criteria by analogy with the War Treatise, and this is not an extended use of the War Treatise's criteria; of the ought of the "war-party," Paper 6, N31, takes up only the construct's slot. For the constitution, the final instance, the armed forces, and colonization and empire there was no handover; Papers 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 set them up anew. External routes at the national level are not presumed weak on account of level, and those that are usable are checked item by item and used; what is derived from the definition of the state's end of the range is that, for the class of corrections that must be realized by this state, the step of landing is in this state; the rest is undertaken separately, following the Theory of Government; how the exit from or switching of an external arrangement is to be reviewed is handed to the Theory of Inter-State Cooperation, and external questioning cannot be cancelled (the Prequel, §6; Paper 1, §§5 and 6).
Taken on, not carried through. What is derived under SF1 and what is undertaken separately under it have been recorded apart in the table of strong forms: the part undertaken separately is an undertaking, not a proof. Beyond the column "How far it goes," there are several places that this series has taken on and carried only so far. They are registered as they stand, not written as already delivered: - Not refusing those who have nowhere to go: "how far it extends" is divided into three bands by relational thickness; where the bounds of the three bands lie has no scale (N14). - Membership acquired by birth cannot be expelled, and fraud in naturalization is determined by the courts; where the birth registration itself was procured by someone's fraud, whether this counts as acquisition by birth or as an acquisition that did not validly take place is registered as a remainder (Paper 3, §3). - For the secession procedure, only the minimum requirements of "really usable" have been set; how long the reasonable interval once the procedure has run its course should be is not fixed; the procedure's remainders are at least four, and are not claimed to be exhaustive (N16). - Those who refuse to bear arms must have a really usable road; what becomes of those who refuse only one particular war is registered as a remainder (Paper 4, §7). - The detention clause that held the six hundred forty crosses the line by configuration; if among the six hundred forty there turns out to be, besides, a case-by-case review that can release people, how each person stands is registered as a remainder (Paper 4, §3). - When, in those six weeks at the factory gate, arbitration could have opened: the case file does not record it, and Paper 4, §1, leaves it as a gap in the facts, without passing judgment. - In branch 19-B, how long the "short period" is within which wartime powers are re-established once hostilities have no recognizable endpoint is registered as a remainder (Paper 4, §5). - The determination of crossing the boundary is made in two grades, and the timing of the checking afterward is stated, while its form is not fixed; for the stretch where both sides' acts have crossed the boundary, the criteria are set up by this series itself, by analogy (N33). - Diplomacy can carry questioning; treaty mechanisms admitting individual petitions come close to a channel, but they have no enforcer of their own, and whether their decisions land still rests with this state; their nature and design as channels are left as a remainder (Paper 5, N27). - This paper's four items and the minimum content of booking the account are requirements; they say only what there must at least be, not that having it is enough, nor do they certify that the UCSE or any actual state has met them (N36, N39).
The work remaining, and where it is sent. With this, the four steps on the side of institutions have completed this round of unfolding: How Is Institution Possible (Foundational Paper 6; cited as F6) answers on what grounds an institution stands; Institution Theory answers what an institution is for; the Theory of Government answers to whom, and for what, a government's judgments must answer; the Theory of the State answers for the few places that arise only when there is no higher level above. Completing one round does not mean that all the questions of institutions have been settled.
The definition of the state's end of the range names an extreme (the Prequel, §6). Actual states can have treaty mechanisms above them that carry no force, and so stand at some distance from this end; how far they lie from it changes how much external routes can make up; it does not change the taking-up at this level that the class of corrections that must be realized by this state requires. The stretch between the two this series does not write.
Five destinations receive what is sent on: Law Series P4 (the interstellar and what lies between civilizations, the law above states); the Theory of Inter-State Cooperation; specific theories of institutions; the Critiques (the person's side); essays (real history and real wars). What each is handed is given in the handover table in the Interfaces at the end.
Following the practice of the Theory of Government at its close, only these handovers that have an address are forward assignments; the remainders registered above are not promises about future writing (Theory of Government Paper 6, §8). "An address being fixed is not the same as being settled" (ibid.).
Where the whole series stops. This series stops at the state's end of the range. The design of constitutional orders and agencies, real history, the interstellar and what lies between civilizations, and multi-state systems of cooperation it does not write. Nor does it judge, on the reader's behalf, the state the reader lives in.
Back to the main line:
Toward its internal subjects, a state holds to anti-colonization and strives for cultivation; outwardly, it does not colonize, and does not decide on behalf of the people of other states; each of its "lasts" remains open to questioning.
The first clause follows Institution Theory and the Theory of Government. At the national level it lands in these places: a constitution recognizes; it does not grant (Paper 1, N6); no expulsion, and no creating statelessness (Paper 3, N14); force turned outward is not turned inward (Paper 4, N18); the survival of the state is not the survival of persons (Paper 4, N23); conscription does not override the person's own law (Paper 4, N23a).
The middle clause is the most literal form of anti-colonization on the outward side: not deciding the direction for the people of other states, in peacetime (Paper 5, N25), and in occupation too (Paper 6, N34); how the people of other states whom this state's acts reach are counted follows the unified sentence (full text in §3; Paper 3, N15; Paper 5, N25, N29; Paper 6, N32; extension; own undertaking).
The last clause is this paper: every "last" lies under a channel it cannot itself close (N36); inwardly there are the closed loop, the channels of internal subjects, and exit (N37); questions from outside connect to the channels inside (N38); bearing can be located (N39).
With Kant. Paper 5 has already conversed with two places in Kant's Perpetual Peace (Zum ewigen Frieden): the Second Definitive Article (Paper 5, §7) and the publicity of Appendix II (Paper 5, §4). What comes close to the middle clause is the Third Definitive Article of the same section, which is taken up here. The article itself reads: "Cosmopolitan right shall be restricted to the conditions of universal hospitality." (my translation; Das Weltbürgerrecht soll auf Bedingungen der allgemeinen Hospitalität eingeschränkt seyn.; Zum ewigen Frieden, Second Section, Third Definitive Article, per the first edition, Nicolovius, 1795, Project Gutenberg EBook #46873; compared with the English translation by M. C. Smith, EBook #50922; tier A) He says that the question here is "not of philanthropy, but of right" (my translation; nicht von Philanthropie, sondern vom Recht; ibid.). Hospitality means "the right of a stranger not to be treated with hostility by another on account of his arrival on that other's soil" (my translation; das Recht eines Fremdlings, seiner Ankunft auf dem Boden eines andern wegen, von diesem nicht feindselig behandelt zu werden; ibid.); the other "can turn him away, so long as this can be done without his ruin" (my translation; Dieser kann ihn abweisen, wenn es ohne seinen Untergang geschehen kann; ibid.); this is not a "right to be a guest" but a "right to visit" (my translation; kein Gastrecht ... sondern ein Besuchsrecht; ibid.). The reason is the common possession of the surface of the earth, on which human beings must in the end live side by side (ibid., paraphrased). He says further that intercourse has become so close that "a violation of right in one place on the earth is felt in all" (my translation; daß die Rechtsverletzung an einem Platz der Erde an allen gefühlt wird; ibid.).
The common question is: what does a state owe to people who do not hold its membership but come up against it? They agree in three places. First, this is a matter of right, not of philanthropy; the unified sentence too speaks of the construct's ought, not of goodwill. Second, no membership is conferred: he says that hospitality is not a right to be a guest; the unified sentence says that this confers no membership (N12). Third, in the same article he criticizes the practice of treating a visit to foreign lands as the same thing as conquering them (welches ihnen mit dem Erobern derselben für einerley gilt; ibid.); the middle clause of the main line says that outwardly a state does not colonize.
They part in three places. First, the ground. He argues from the common possession of the surface of the earth, and from human beings' having in the end to live side by side; this series relies not on geography but on entanglement, and whether there is a common border makes no difference (the Prequel, §6); who is in this state's interior, and what this state owes them, follows the unified sentence (full text in §3). Second, the scope. His hospitality is confined to not being treated with hostility, and to being turned away only where this does not bring one's ruin; under the unified sentence, this state owes more than that (§3, the place of the Junction Town families). Third, the level. He treats cosmopolitan right as a necessary complement to the unwritten code of the right of states and the right of nations, through which the human race comes closer to a cosmopolitan constitution (ibid., paraphrased); this series does not write the law and the mechanisms above states, and sends them to Law Series P4 and to the Theory of Inter-State Cooperation respectively. This is a division of scope, not a refutation.
Direction, and names. The direction is the Kingdom of Ends. Institution Theory Paper 0 has already conversed with Kant on this name of his (§3.1); here this paper only points back to it. What this series takes is the layer Institution Theory takes: the Kingdom of Ends is a direction, not an ought, nor a state to be signed off as achieved; "it is made by persons; an institution cannot make it on their behalf, nor does it count as made because an institution declares it" (Institution Theory Z39). So it is with a state: it cannot make it on persons' behalf, nor can it declare it made.
All three states carry "ends" in their names: the United City-States of Ends, the Nation Union of Telos, the Democratic Republic of Purposes. The name vouches for no direction. A leaning is a direction, not an identity; this series has not judged what kind of state any of the three is; what it judges is acts, one by one.
Whether the UCSE, under pressure, would slide toward the 14DD direction, Papers 5 and 6 check through mirror assimilation and crossing the boundary (Paper 5, N28; Paper 6, N33). This paper looks from the side of channels: the place where it can be seen most clearly is whether each "last" still lies under a channel it cannot itself close. The War Treatise says: "Whether questioning is permitted is directly observable from outside." (War Treatise §16; rendered from the Chinese page) In Years 9 to 12 the UCSE shut the door in several places (§1); afterward several were opened again: Article 17 expired, a new Inspector-General was elected, the inquiry commission began to ask; and some remain, such as the surveillance with the peace treaty as its term (Paper 4, §5). These are each checked act by act, and are not combined into one judgment that falls on the name of a state.
"The continued existence of the UCSE is the highest reason" writes a "last" as exemption from questioning. Wherever something is written so, the sentence itself is a place where questioning is due.
The Boundary River still runs west of Reedtown. The liaison office at Three Borders is still open. The inquiry commission is still waiting on that case before the Final Court. Of the eight papers of this series, not one can turn the UCSE into a good person; it has no first person. What they have written down are the few things a construct with no higher level above it must observe: the supreme rule can change the institutional structure, but not the line; it cannot withdraw the conditions of being questioned, and the road for changing it is itself questioned; the decision of the last instance can be final; the position is not final; people can leave, and are not expelled; force does not turn inward, survival does not produce a sovereign, and wartime structures are dismantled after the war; other states are not colonized, and the people of other states are treated following the unified sentence; every step of a war has someone to determine it, and someone to ask about it afterward; each "last" still has someone who can question it, and once it is questioned, the account has somewhere to land. Whether these have been achieved has to be asked, place by place.
N40 Where the series stops. With this, the four steps on the side of institutions have completed this round of unfolding: F6, Institution Theory, the Theory of Government, the Theory of the State; this does not mean that all the questions of institutions have been settled. Handed over: the interstellar and what lies between civilizations (Law Series P4); multi-state systems of cooperation, treaty mechanisms above states, third-state rescue, and how the exit from or switching of an external arrangement is to be reviewed, and by whom (the Theory of Inter-State Cooperation); the design of constitutional orders and agencies (specific theories of institutions); the person's side (the Critiques); real history (essays).
Where This Paper Stops
This paper has proved only these things: every "last" lies under a channel it cannot itself close, and for each of the six it is stated who initiates it, which object it affects, whether the party questioned can close it, and how the account is booked when it fails, the fourth item being undertaken by this series; where a position does not act, and there is no substitute independent of it, it becomes a "last" in fact, checked under N11b; for secret acts, the channel must have a position that does not wait for those affected to initiate. The channels inward are the closed loop, the channels internal subjects can initiate, and exit; exit does not stand in for questioning, is not placed first, and there is no order requiring other channels to be exhausted first. Outwardly, this state may decline to answer ordinary diplomatic questions between peers that carry no separate obligation to answer, and requirements to answer under acknowledged treaties and common procedures are carried out; answering and not answering are both questioned inside, and only a connection to the inside makes a channel. Bearing can be located; booking the account has at least three items, and does not rely on punishment.
What it has not proved: how channels are to be designed is handed to specific theories of institutions; the four items and the minimum content of booking the account are requirements, which say only what the least is, not what is enough, and certify neither the UCSE nor any actual state as having met them; how mechanisms above states bind states is handed to the Theory of Inter-State Cooperation; compensation and legal liability are left to specific law.
The series stops here. On what grounds an institution stands is the work of How Is Institution Possible; what an institution is for is the work of Institution Theory; to whom, and for what, a government's judgments in concrete situations must answer is the work of the Theory of Government; how officeholders, judges, soldiers and internal subjects are to be is each person's own law, and how one person is to treat another is the work of the Critiques; what lies above states is the work of Law Series P4 and the Theory of Inter-State Cooperation. What this series has written is this: when there is no higher level above it, how each of a state's "lasts" still guards the line and remains open to questioning.
The Five Propositions of This Paper
N36 Every "last" lies under a channel it cannot itself close. Theory of Government G36 says that a construct's configuration ought to place every position under some channel it cannot itself close; extended to the several "lasts" of a state, the net has no outer layer: external routes can stand alongside; for corrections that must be implemented by this state, the taking-up is put together within this state; questions from outside are connected into the channels within this state (extension; own undertaking). The last rule lies under constitutional amendment and questioning at the third layer (N3, N4); the last instance lies under the closed loop (N7, N8); the last exit: a decision restricting exit lies under the closed loop and the channels of internal subjects (N13, N37), and revocation of citizenship and secession likewise each lie under channels the party questioned cannot close (N14, N16); the last force lies under non-monopoly and questioning afterward (N20, N21); one another, with no superior: this state may decline to answer ordinary diplomatic questions between peers that carry no separate obligation to answer (requirements to answer under the treaties and common procedures it has acknowledged follow N24 and N27), and what it cannot close is peers judging for themselves on this basis and withdrawing cooperation other than recognition (N26), and these questions entering the channels inside through this state's internal subjects (N37); the last resort lies under the non-monopoly of the determination (N30) and under inquiry and booking the account afterward (N21, N39), and Theorem Four is the ground of these channels (N31). For every channel it must be stated who initiates it, which object it affects, whether the party questioned can close it, and how the account is booked when it fails; the first three follow the three questions of Theory of Government G36a, and the fourth is undertaken by this series (own undertaking). Where a position does not act, and there is no substitute independent of it, it becomes a "last" in fact; this place too lies under a channel, and is checked under Paper 2, N11b.
N37 Channels inward. The closed loop (N5, N8); the channels internal subjects can initiate, under the three conditions of Theory of Government G35: independent of the party questioned, internal subjects can actually initiate them, and initiating them brings no retaliation; exit (N13). Exit does not stand in for questioning (Theory of Government G27), nor is it the default first means for every matter; there is no order requiring a person in danger to exhaust other channels before leaving (own undertaking).
N38 Outward, peers' questions connect to the channels inside. With no superior, external questioning comes from other states, from the people of other states, and from common procedures both parties have acknowledged and authorized external mechanisms (N24, N27). This state may decline to answer ordinary diplomatic questions between peers that carry no separate obligation to answer; the requirements to answer and to implement that it bears under the treaties and common procedures it has acknowledged still follow N24 and N27, and the questions of those whom this state's acts reach still follow the unified sentence. Answering and not answering are themselves both open to questioning in this state, and are questioned in the channels inside (own undertaking); this state's undertaking is to let these questions have somewhere to land, not to retaliate in response, and not to treat them as hostility. A peer's question does not on its own count as a channel; it counts only once it connects to N37.
N39 Bearing can be located (carried over from Theory of Government G36; Institution Theory Z6). The state's name does not shield the bearing of positions and persons, and the construct's failure is not automatically transferred onto any one person. The minimum content of booking the account (own undertaking): decisions and reasons made public, records attributed to particular positions and persons; those affected can ask about it in an independent channel and receive an answer; a position at fault is subject to stricter confirmation in decisions of the same kind thereafter. Whether there is legal liability besides is left to specific law.
N40 Where the series stops. With this, the four steps on the side of institutions have completed this round of unfolding: F6, Institution Theory, the Theory of Government, the Theory of the State; this does not mean that all the questions of institutions have been settled. Handed over: the interstellar and what lies between civilizations (Law Series P4); multi-state systems of cooperation, treaty mechanisms above states, third-state rescue, and how the exit from or switching of an external arrangement is to be reviewed, and by whom (the Theory of Inter-State Cooperation); the design of constitutional orders and agencies (specific theories of institutions); the person's side (the Critiques); real history (essays).
References
All SAE works below are cited by concept DOI, which always resolves to the latest version. The version records used for sentence-by-sentence verification are given in the accompanying audit table.
Qin, H. (2026). How Is Institution Possible: From Inter-Ontological Remainder to Co-Constructive Framework (SAE Foundational Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19328662
Qin, H. (2026). What an Institution Is Not (SAE Institution Theory, Prequel) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23269330
Qin, H. (2026). To Whom the Ought Is Addressed (SAE Institution Theory, Paper 1) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23269635
Qin, H. (2026). Open to Questioning (SAE Institution Theory, Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23271324
Qin, H. (2026). Institution Theory and the Tradition: The Address of the Ought (SAE Institution Theory, Paper 0) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23272468
Qin, H. (2026). What a Government Is Not (SAE Theory of Government, Prequel) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23411670
Qin, H. (2026). Judgment (SAE Theory of Government, Paper 1) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23412130
Qin, H. (2026). Levels (SAE Theory of Government, Paper 4) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23413192
Qin, H. (2026). Emergency (SAE Theory of Government, Paper 5) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23413413
Qin, H. (2026). Questioning and Bearing (SAE Theory of Government, Paper 6) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23413511
Qin, H. (2026). On the Limitation and Violation of Basic Rights (SAE Rights Theory, Paper 5) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21212595
Qin, H. (2026). SAE War Treatise: How Cultivation Is Not Swallowed by War Itself [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19656617
Qin, H. (2026). Interstellar Law and Grand Closure — The Recession of Coercive Law (SAE Law Series, Paper 4) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19549018
Qin, H. (2026). SAE: The Second Critique [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23250387
Kant, I. (1795). Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf. Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius. Project Gutenberg, EBook #46873. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46873
Kant, I. (1917). Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay. Trans. M. Campbell Smith (1st ed. 1903; 3rd impression). London: George Allen & Unwin. Project Gutenberg, EBook #50922. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50922
Interfaces
- Main upstream: the Theory of Government (Paper 6, G35, G36, G36a, §3; Paper 4, G27); Institution Theory (Paper 1, Z4, Z6; Paper 6, Z35a, Z37, Z38, Z39); War Treatise §16, Theorem Four (two sentences rendered from the Chinese page); the propositions of Papers 1 to 6 of this series.
- Also used: the Theory of Government (Paper 1, G2, G6; Paper 5, G30; Paper 6, G38, G39, §7 (G40), §8; the Prequel, §8); Rights Theory P5 F21 (via Theory of Government G39); Institution Theory Z36; the Institution Theory Prequel (via the unified sentence); War Treatise, the opening of the Middle Volume, and the methods-constraint of §15 (the latter via Paper 6, §3); The Second Critique, Ch. 6 §7 (via Paper 6, N31).
- Interfacing: Kant (cosmopolitan right, Perpetual Peace, Second Section, Third Definitive Article; tier A, per the first edition of 1795, compared with Smith's English translation; a different topic from the same author: the Second Definitive Article and the publicity of Appendix II, in Paper 5, §§7 and 4). Pointing back: Kant (the Kingdom of Ends, Institution Theory Paper 0, §3.1).
- This series: the close. Each of the six places of N36 points back to Papers 1 to 6, and the four items the papers have written are put together in §1; the "last" grown from not acting is checked under Paper 2, N11b; the seven rows of the strong forms and the accounts from upstream are looked back on in §5; measure follows the Prequel, §8; booking the account takes up the pointers in Paper 4, §§4 and 6, and in Paper 6, §3 (N39).
- Handovers downstream (the series' final paper):
| Handed to | What is handed | Where in this series |
|---|---|---|
| Law Series P4; the interstellar and what lies between civilizations | The law above states; what lies between civilizations | The Prequel, §6; §5 of this paper |
| The Theory of Inter-State Cooperation | Third-state rescue in the face of large-scale line-crossing inside another state; how treaty mechanisms above states (those admitting individual petitions included) bind states; the design of multi-state systems of cooperation; the common procedure for multilateral sanctions; how the exit from or switching of an external arrangement is to be reviewed, and by whom; the stretch between the state's end of the range and actual states | The Prequel, §6; Paper 1, §5; Paper 5, N25, N27, N29; §5 of this paper |
| Specific theories of institutions | Constitutional form, the composition of courts, the organization of the armed forces, emergency law, the specific arrangements for naturalization and asylum, the form of the secession procedure, the design of external mechanisms; the forms of channels and of the function of substitute execution | "Where This Paper Stops" in each paper; §§1, 2 and 3 of this paper |
| The Critiques | The person's side: the own law of each soldier, civilian, refugee and delegate to a constitutional convention; of what The Second Critique registers as "no address yet," this series has taken on only the construct's slot | The Prequel, §8; Paper 6, N31 |
| Essays | Real history and real wars | The Prequel, §8; §5 of this paper |